Headstock Bias

[Jefenator]

I admire originality and flair in a headstock. Maybe it's my art school training, but it has to keep the eye moving and it has to look "finished".
Too many high end makers IMHO put all kinds of energy into the rest of the instrument then just kind of fizzle out when it comes time to draft a cool headstock shape. I hate to say it but it really has become a deal-killer for me in some cases - especially for $2000!
It's definitely objective. I like what I like and sometimes I like it when what I like makes other people barf.

 

[dennis james]

I know it's not important but I have to admit headstock shape does matter to me. I'm among the legions that hate that little scallop thingy on the G&L headstock but not so much that it would keep me from buying what is an otherwise fine instrument. I've also always had a problem with the 3 on one side 1 on the other on the MM.

 

[WillyW]

It does and it doesn't.

 

[iiipopes]

The Rickenbacker 4-string headstock is a great design from the standpoint of the E tuner is offset and far enough up the headstock that you can use any reasonable long scale E string on the bass and not worry about anything but the leader wrapping around the tuner post so the string doesn't bind.

For a 5-string, I prefer 2+3 headstocks for the same reason: get the B string tuner far enough away from the nut so that for any reasonable regular long scale B string only the leader goes around the tuner post so the string doesn't bind. I play an Ibby BTB845V converted to B-G with electronics upgrades for my #1 gig bass for this and other reasons.

 

[BackToTheGroove]

Fender heads are classic, but maybe little tired now? I love the sculpted head of my G&L, Leo's last company where he perfected and advanced everything he'd designed in the 50's... but for a few decades before that I thought the Brylecreem curl of my '74 4001 gave me special powers. Recent Jack Casady brought the first Gibsonesque head to the trees and besides being completely enamoured with this bass, I'm really digging the classic furniture craftsmanship of its big ol' 2 and 2 headstock. Yesterday I bought a bass in London from the The Bass Gallery (I'm far away from that great city, but me bruva lives a 15 min 'round the corner from this amazingly fantastic shop)... have not had a J style bass, wanted something different than the Big F, and have been intrigued for the last bit of time with builders like Trev Wilkinson and now Allan Entwistle. So bought this gorgeous, and inexpensive Revelation RBJ-67. Love the noggin' on this beauty with it's beveled detail. Very nice as they say in Kazakhstan. There's my snotty comment, and I'm stickin' to eet.
Here is one I reshaped from what used to resemble a canoe paddle. Curve radius' came from my son's favourite sippy cup, at the time. Cheers

 

[wild4oldcars]

4 in line please. Hate having to do the reach around for a 2+2, or god forbid a reverse inline

Also, anything where the strings enter the nut at an angle is an automatic blacklist

 

[retslock]

How could it not? This design is a thing of beauty.
View attachment 4185109

I love that headstock shape too. Always have since the '60s but I think it's just a little too large and would be much classier if it was a tiny bit smaller.

 

[retslock]

People say wonderful things about them but I cannot think about buying a bass with a headstock that looks like Gumby.

 

[DavidEdenAria]

On a cheap bass, if the headstock is plenty large and i dont like its shape (4 on a side) i will likely trim/reshape the headstock a bit

 

[Freekmagnet]

I voted yes.

Headstocks are actually really hard to design. There's limited amount of space and the headstock must serve technical functions, such as holding the tuners and keeping the strings at the right break angle, as well as esthetic functions. I think a lot of designers will opt for a headstock shape that is easy to machine because that is really the safest choice to make in a production environment.

I don't want to look at a bass and think, "well, that is a really great collection of safe choices." I want an instrument that is visually appealing, plays comfortably enough to get me through 4 one-hour sets, and sounds big enough to drive the f••• out of the rhythm section.

 

[theguy155]

Headstock shape is pretty big for me honestly. The G&L headstock is hideous even though the bass sounds incredible. Can't stand Fender Jazz with 5 in line tuners, the 4+1 is absolutely gorgeous to me though. Ibanez 3+2 does not look good to me but the 2+3 looks awesome on the premium models. Other notable headstocks I enjoy are Cort and Warwick.

 

[roller]

I've always kinda liked the point on the G&L headstock. It's certainly never bothered me, especially when the bass it's attached to is fantastic (selling my L2000 was a mistake... [sigh])

The very same can be said about the basses attached to these unique headstocks -- they play and sound superb!

 

[dkelley]

It certainly can ruin things...

 

[JoshS]

I feel like I've been here before.

Who here writes off a bass due to headstock/tuners configs?

I could have swore I read some of the responses verbatim!

 

[kleinenenten]

Never really thought of it on a bass. That being said, I seem to like either 2+2 or 4 inline (though I don't own any like that). I've never seen a bass that I really wanted that had a headstock I found questionable. Guitar, however, I have found some that I don't like. I've always wanted an Iceman guitar, and have found some that are within my price range. But I don't want one with the inline tuners - that's not the "classic" Iceman look. So I haven't bought one, since those are the only ones I've seen in my price range.

For basses, I prefer 5 strings most of the time, so there is no option for a symmetric head. One of my 5 strings is 2+3, the other is 3+2. Doesn't matter to me. The only time it's affected me is when I wanted to try flats on one of my basses and realized the different lengths of the strings would prevent me from swapping strings between basses. Not a big deal, I just kept the strings on the basses.

 

[Supadope]

2+2 or 3+2

I have lots of wall hangars and they hang better than inline.

 

[2tonic]

Are you sure you're not transferring a deep-rooted inner resentment of the basic injustice and fundamental futility of human existence in a vast, uncaring universe to the headstock scenario?

 

[NOVAX]

My MTD Grendel has helped me to embrace change.

 

[N4860]

I wouldn't likely buy an instrument if I hated how the headstock looked. I like most fender shaped headstocks except for the bottle opener G&L.

I really like the EBMM headstock.

 

[Swamp_Ronin]

Appeal is subjective. With that out of the way, I think some headstocks are surprisingly unappealing. A lot of them look like they were created by someone with no background in drawing, sculpture, or design. Some of them are so ghastly that they should be obscured from the eyes of mankind. I'm not going to bring up any specifics, because I don't want to make any enemies here.

I think, if an alien from Mars with no skin in the game saw a Fender or Music Man or Ric headstock, they would say "that's appealing, it looks real good." Those designs have their shortcomings, but there's no actual reason for ugly headstocks. Only bad taste or laziness.